Some Forum Guidelines

[Jason Dunn]

Originally Posted by William

I am not sure why it would be a good idea to include a link to a site that in turn includes a link to a site (http://www.ydnar.com/) that suggests that you, Jason, don't follow other host's rules. Not if you want to set up your own rules and have them respected.

I like to think that people are adult enough to understand that there's a reason for everything, and that sometimes rules get broken because of that. The scenario was that someone was asking for asking for an EQ program for their Pocket PC. The newsgroups there didn't have a binary group for Pocket PCs, and the EQ program has no URL to download it from, so I posted the file to help the guy who asked for it out. Immediately the moderator pounced on me, and it turned into a little flame war - I really have no patience for USENET rulebook-thumpers who insist on three line sigs, no top quoting, etc. There's more to life than rules like that.

I find the fact that he wanted to post my apology quite odd, just like I found the fact that he got so upset about a 15K binary to begin with.

So there you have it. I would hope that if someone wanted to break my rules, and they had a good reason for doing so (ie: it was serving you guys in some way) that I'd be mature enough to recognize that and let the rule be broken once.

[Jason Dunn]

Originally Posted by William

I am not sure why it would be a good idea to include a link to a site that in turn includes a link to a site (http://www.ydnar.com/) that suggests that you, Jason, don't follow other host's rules. Not if you want to set up your own rules and have them respected.

I like to think that people are adult enough to understand that there's a reason for everything, and that sometimes rules get broken because of that. The scenario was that someone was asking for asking for an EQ program for their Pocket PC. The newsgroups there didn't have a binary group for Pocket PCs, and the EQ program has no URL to download it from, so I posted the file to help the guy who asked for it out. Immediately the moderator pounced on me, and it turned into a little flame war - I really have no patience for USENET rulebook-thumpers who insist on three line sigs, no top quoting, etc. There's more to life than rules like that.

I find the fact that he wanted to post my apology quite odd, just like I found the fact that he got so upset about a 15K binary to begin with.

So there you have it. I would hope that if someone wanted to break my rules, and they had a good reason for doing so (ie: it was serving you guys in some way) that I'd be mature enough to recognize that and let the rule be broken once.

[shawnc]

Originally Posted by Kevin Daly

:roll:
The alarming thing is that it is even necessary to remind people of most of this. Surely as sane people discussing subjects which are, let's face it, not matters of life and death, we can do so with a bit of common civility?
The venom to which some boards descend frankly raises serious questions about the emotional stability of the average human being.

EXACTLY! I just read Jason's policy and most of it was simply common sense and human courtesy. My experience with this site is that the overhelming majority of participants understand, and abide by, the rules. The others (very small minority) likely understand the rules, but simply don't care. My perception is that the moderators jobs have become increasingly more difficult. Some of us (and I include myself in this category) need to lighten up a bit so these folks don't have to work so hard to keep this site so great.

[Wuss912]

how about adding a rule about no pictures in sigs...
we already have the avatar pics and that already seems excessive .

[easylife]

Digging up old threads, eh? :wink: I think the rules come down to a mixture of common sense and site policy. :way to go:

[Janak Parekh]

easylife -- not really -- this thread was referred to by a frontpage post of Jason's today.

--janak

[easylife]

Originally Posted by Janak Parekh

easylife -- not really -- this thread was referred to by a frontpage post of Jason's today.

Yes I know, but nevertheless this discussion took place over a year ago. :wink:

EDIT: Arg, I recieved this error when I posted the first time:

Failed sending email :: PHP ::

And I posted a second time, resulting in a duplicate post. I clicked 'delete' but I couldn't delete the post because Janak had already replied! So, after my reply to Janak, I edited my second post to include something about the error, and when I pushed submit, phpBB informed me that it had been already deleted! :lol: Oh well...

[Jason Dunn]

Originally Posted by easylife

Yes I know, but nevertheless this discussion took place over a year ago. :wink:

But it's still perfectly valid today - in fact, I updated the section on sigs. So what's your point here exactly?

[easylife]

Originally Posted by Jason Dunn

But it's still perfectly valid today - in fact, I updated the section on sigs. So what's your point here exactly?

My point? Simply saying that the rules should be based on common sense and site policy and what's acceptable and what's not is largely based upon the curcumstances. :wink: The part about the old thread was just extra.

[JustinGTP]

But, its good to get them out again because now I can see them. This would be my first time!

-Justin.